Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up:
"Trouble is brewing in Rapture. The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc, and the $5 premium is an unlock code. It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360. 2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots."

If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!

That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.

When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.

Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken. They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.

I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest. Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad. (I found Societies to be more fun, and that's saying something.) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.

It really is shocking that anyone can appreciate when someone resorts to duplicity.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money at all for me to take that lock off so you have a place to conveniently set your drink, would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.

The fact that its on the game disk is irrelevant though. For example, when I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, that disk also contains Windows 7 Ultimate. I'm not given a key to unlock Ultimate, but I can buy a key from Microsoft to upgrade to it if I want to.

Dose not matter at all. As long as the game I was told I was paying for is the same as the game I received I can have no complaint. It scares me that I live in a world where people are pissed of that they are not getting something that they were never told they were going to get.

That fact its on the disc puts us at the assumption that this content was already ready at release but was put in the DLC category to make a quick buck.

Seems like a cheap way to nickel and dime us which is becoming the defining definition of this generation of gaming development and consoles.

DLC is a great concept but has turned into such a cash cow that companies are now developing the game and DLC at the same time so to increase their revenue pipeline in a shorter span of time. Its smart from a reve

Blizzard (possibly the most evil gaming company to convert from awesome indie hood to 1984), will almost definitely try to do tiered access the same way they do with WoW, oh you didn't buy the expansion? Well you don't have to, but you will be the handicapped of Azeroth with no special parking, to the point that not buying the expansions means you've completely wasted all the time money you DID invest. I notice you didn't provide a link to your assertion so I'll just spout my opinion the same as you.

In addition, the most purchased game EVER, Modern Warfare 2, does and did have a $60 MSRP, and is still selling as such on Steam and probably elsewhere. No, I don't own it; nor will I.

I am an avid, long time gamer (25+ years), I supported Blizzard from Blackthorne on 3.5" floppy to WoW; never again. They've proven money is more important to them than anything else, their customer service is abysmal, their inflated monthly fees for a 5+ year old game are sad, they're pro-censorship and anti-freedom at every level. Their enormous Asian market keeps them afloat I'd wager. Yes, they have polished releases where almost no one else does. That's the one thing they have left, I wonder how long before it goes too. Once bitten twice shy? I got sick of re-buying scratched games and whatnot.

It seems like they will be milking the SC2 and Diablo III releases for as much as they can. I would rather seem them charge $80 or $100 up front and include everything than do something insidious like this which contributes to the DLC debauchery, which I think is wrong generally, as has already been posted, developers are now leaving things out on purpose to charge for them later.

I used to scoff at people who said PC gaming was dying. I've since sadly joined their ranks.

What bothers me is the possibility that content is cut from the game specifically to sell, rather than being developed in addition to the game. It's important to bear in mind though that extra content can still be developed before the game is totally finished, programmers don't create most of the game content.

Feeling cheated is kind of subjective. The whole thing with the new Starcraft games sounds like a cheat. It's not just Starcraft 2 but a trilogy of games, one game per race rather than one game with three races and three campaigns. And each game will go for $50 or $60. That feels like a cheat. It's supposed to be three full games worth of material but it doesn't feel right.

Lord of the Rings was shot like one big movie and released in installments. It didn't feel like such a cheat since the second one was in no way complete when the first hit theaters, likewise for the third when the second was released. And when released on DVD we knew the schedule in advance, movie versions first with expanded editions later. The whole set was expensive but well worth the money. But technically this is no different from Starcraft 2. Feels different, though.

It seems like the only way to handle this for games is to just get the game of the year or collected edition a year or three after release when all the DLC is shipped on CD. God knows nobody has enough hard drive space on the consoles to keep all the DLC handy.

Actually I would say it being on the disc is VERY relevant, and nothing like Windows at all. To use your Windows example, I am typing this on Windows 7 Home Premium, which I got for a whole $50 on pre-release. While I'm sure that like other Windows 7 versions it has the upgrades all the way to Ultimate on it, I looked at what the machine was going to do and decided that I didn't need the extras that was on the higher licenses.

But in this case you bought a game. You were actually expecting a whole game not "Bioshock 2 Basic edition". I think it is pretty clear by having the DLC on disc (which kinda defeats the point of calling it downloadable content) that what they did was say "which part of Bioshock 2 can we cut out and charge the for later?".

And THAT my friend, is the big difference. Before MSFT even went RTM with Windows 7 they had already listed what features each license had, so you had the choice of choosing what was right for you, or choosing not to buy at all. In this case you went to buy a complete game only to find out later "Sucker! You want the "whole complete" game cough up another $5!" and with an attitude like that it really wouldn't surprise me if after making all the nickel and dimes they can on this "DLC" you'll get told "Total sucker! If you want the "really truly not kidding" complete version shell out another $20!"

It is this kind of bullshit that has me avoiding games that don't allow modding or dedicated servers like the clap. Before thanks to mods I can get more value from my games thanks to the modding community, like all the worlds I have to explore now in Freelancer. But I knew when I first heard this "DLC" buzzword bingo that it would quickly devolve into selling a $50 with chunks missing, only to have the final game in up costing you $100 or more so some PHB can "maximize their profit potential" by "creating synergy between our IP and the customers wallets". Just one more game I won't be touching until it ends up in the local bargain bin. And do the pirates have the full version up yet? Wouldn't surprise me if yet again the PHB bullshit has made the pirate version better than retail.

Actually something similar to this is common practice: hotel room mini-bars. I've paid for the room and they've placed content in that room, but if I want to make use of that content... I have to pay. If I use it and then not pay, that's stealing and it is illegal.

Some other industries do this sort of thing, too. I'm working with a client right now that makes big machines that make stuff; they keep spare parts on the premises of their customers that pay for them as they use them. Some larger servers have things like unused disk or CPU capacity installed in them that sits idle; when you need to expand capacity all you do is call the vendor and they turn on the existing hardware... it's all there but you don't get to use it until you pay for it.

Referring to your original post, I don't think any of this is unethical... including what the game maker did (and, no, I haven't played the game, nor will I). Now is it consumer friendly? Different question and I probably wouldn't have made the same decision the game maker did if I were in their place; maybe sold the game as standard and premium editions or something like that. But there is no moral imperative that's being violated unless they said you bought everything on the disk and then failed to honor that.

Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.

- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?

- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.

So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.

there was some other game where the exact opposite thing happened and i didnt even make it up either but i lost the link, forgot the game, and dont care enough about the quality of my post to do anything more about it. thank you!

Lets say you buy a nice sporty car, lets say a BMW at around 350HP. You've been using it for a while, and then your dealer tells you you can get an extra 50HP by applying a software patch, but it will cost you 2000$.

Well, they've been doing such a thing for a while, and people are actually quite happy with this.. because they got the car as it was advertised in the first case, and those extra HP are well worth the price of the patch and the engine warranty reducti

Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right. About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam. Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid. A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find? More levels, and more game modes. The company just keeps on giving!

I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name. Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money. Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

So much for being allowed a difference of opinion...

I don't see this as being ethical or unethical - its simply another sales method. Were you promised the extra content and features in the original sale? No? Then whats the problem? Your purchase isn't faulty.

It's not about a promise. What 2K is doing is testing the boundaries by seeing what in addition they can charge you for, where it becomes less physical and more abstract, where the demarcation is between the consumer and the producer.

This is a matter of ethics because it tests the concept of what is right and wrong ("Ethics are for Everyone, Morals are for Me").

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publis

On-Disc DLC is often stuff that was cut from the core game for financial reasons, then bankrolled by rolling it out into a DLC Pack - the levels were 3/4 done, but the money wasn't there to finish them? Sell 'em to the publisher as on disk/day 1 DLC so they'll give us the money to finish them. Most of the time, the option isn't 'We have 15 levels done on the disc, let's make 5 of them DLC' it's 'We have 15 levels mostly done, and only enough money to pay people to finish 10 of 'em - make 'em DLC, the publisher will fund them that way'

And that's cool, if that's what it takes to get the job done. This is different; the job was already done. They didn't even try to disguise it.

"I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical"
Dramatic much?
Go take a class on economics. Learn about supply and demand. If they can make more money by charging extra for the added content, they will. Otherwise they'll do something different. This is neither ethical not unethical. It's basic business.
Oh, and the "something different" they'll do next time? Wait to release the already-finished content until after the initial release, so peo

they dont have a right to do business this way. its like selling a car, but leaving out the mirrors, and then charging to install them.

its selling an incomplete product. its basic fraud. these are now legal because we let them do so - they sell a 'game', but the definition of amenities in the game are not defined in detail, and also a shitty 'game experience may change' dropped into eula. this covers their ass from selling an incomplete product. it shouldnt happen.

Well, they did sell a functioning product, and what they essentially did was lock out an existing feature. No one really complained when GTA3 didn't have access to "coffee", but they didn't release a DLC the same day allowing you to unlock that "existing feature" in the game.

No, it's more like selling a car, and then directing you to the performance parts department where you can purchase add-on parts that were developed prior-to and available at the time of purchase.

My truck didn't come with a supercharger, but the manufacturer had a factory-produced, dealer-installed, covered-by-the-standard-100k-warranty option available as an extra. Is the supercharger necessary? No. Is it desirable? Depends on the buyer.

You were never promised that content and all the content that they promised you when you decided to buy the game is intact. You got everything you thought you were getting. Where you get the extra content from makes absolutely no difference. It should not matter to you whether the content is on the disk, on a server in a basement or hand delivered by gnome. You were given what you agreed to pay for. End of story. You can have a dull butter knife if you want.

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.

Sure, I'll bite.

I have an XBL membership. Every once in a while, I download a demo of an XBL Arcade game. The other day I decided I liked the game enough to pay for it, and did so. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the only thing that was actually being downloaded was the activation key - all the code and resources needed to play were alread

It wouldn't be so bad if I had any suspicion that it wasn't entirely their intent to, well, rip people off.

"I noticed there was a bit of confusion about our Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack file size, and I wanted to clear things up for you. The way our engine and game structure works is that people need to have the exact same content for people to play together. One of the challenges with post launch content for MP is that it can split the player base, and we want to avoid that whenever possible. For this

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

DLC done right is not held back content. Instead it is developers working right up to the final code freeze (may be weeks to months prior to release) on the content you paid for and then saving money by developing new content with the same software. I have no problem with this additional content. How many people have there been that finished a good game and wished for more?

You are supposed to break laws you don't agree with to move forwards and cause change. If it became illegal to gather in public. Even though you havent really done much gathering in past you should do it then. Just to show it is wrong.

OP could simply be taking the stance that giving out part of a product then selling you the rest is wrong. It is illegal to sell what is advertised as a car; when you get it is has no muffler on it. I don't personally think this case is so obvious but the position isn't compl

You are supposed to break laws you don't agree with to move forwards and cause change.

That only applies to laws that are unjust. This has nothing to do with unjust laws. This has to do with a company charging for something that is already included on the original disc. Certainly it is something that isn't popular, but it has nothing to do with any laws. A company can charge whatever they want for something and break it up however they want.

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging

I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).

Or, you know, you could just avoid the game if you disagree with the practices of the person releasing it. You basically lose any moral or ethical high ground by then going out and pirating the game.

Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM. Since me pirating a game that I have no intention of buying (due to DRM) doesn't harm the company in any way, there's no reason why I shouldn't pirate it.

No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM. If all the self-punishing DRM apologists like yourself would just disappear, then DRM would die much faster. You are the cause of DRM - the people who just bend over and take it up the ass and then bitch at those of us who refuse to be punished for buying a product.

I understand that you buy games, but you also go and pirate games that you don't buy. That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software. You can't just NOT buy something, no no...you feel entitled to have it so you pirate it. The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.

That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.

You must be new here, because it's well known that developers don't use DRM to stop piracy, they use DRM to stop second-hand game sales and to force games to become unplayable by turning off activation servers, thus forcing people to buy new games.

I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest. However, I'm not buying it due to the DRM - the company has already lost my sale. They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?

No one made them buy a DRM ridden POS. They / you decided that they're ok with taking it up the ass from DRM. They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games, but they're too stupid and think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.

Your "you got it free and I paid for it" argument holds no ground. You decided that DRM was worth paying for, I decided it wasn't. You made the choice to buy it, so don't bitch about those who chose to save their hard earned money for something worth buyi

Because you're just proving the point that pirates will come up with any excuse to -not- pay for something. If you disagree with a product, then don't buy it, don't steal it, don't advertise it, don't use it only at your friends house, just don't. There is NO entitlement to owning/renting/licensing/whatever the hard work of others without providing what they request in exchange. The only right everyone is justifiably entitled to is to NOT use any product they don't want to use.

But there is no political statement made by using something that you feel you're too good to pay for.

If someone does work, whether they make you a car, or a house, or a game, or some food, or whatever else. They have the right to ask for payment in return for your receipt of the product. If you don't desire to pay them their price, then the -only- justifiable response is to simply not use their product. Restaurant too expensive? Don't eat there. You have no right to wander into the kitchen and just take the food. House too expensive? Don't like the HOA rules? Don't live there, but you don't get to move in anyway and just ignore the price. Game has DRM you don't like? Spend your hard earned money on another companies game that you -do- support. But you don't have the right to still play the game anyway.

As for second hand game sales, you want to see that change? Again, don't spend any money on any product you can't resell afterwords. Enough companies go under from the boycotts and they'll stop pulling that crap. But simply pirating it instead? Then you're just a statistic, someone who they will always convince themselves that if they make it annoying enough, you will eventually be forced into purchasing.

This is like Ghandi going on a hunger strike, then ordering Domino's delivery (vegetarian, of course) three hours in.

People who want to change the world make *sacrifices* for it. If you're not making the sacrifice, you're not doing squat except deluding yourself into thinking stealing games is ok. (Whether or not you would have bought it anyway is *irrelevant* to the conversation.)

You can't get pissy about your own rights without respecting the rights of others-- in this case, the developers, artists, writers, network administrators, etc who created the game and who have the right to control its distribution.

All you're doing is weakening the message of people who really care. Because as long as you carry your current attitude, everybody's just going to assume that people who rant about DRM are only doing it to justify stealing. (As in your example.) Screw you.

"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."

You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!

But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.

So pay once. You get the product you paid for.

If the publisher offers extra content, feel free to ignore them. They're not asking for more money to play what you already have.

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?
At which point this becomes another way in which legitimate users get hurt. Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it?

On the 360 or PS3? It probably will never. Maybe someone can try on the PC but I'm pretty sure they will be doing checks against such a crack when you log in to their servers. It would be trivially easy to detect if someone has done this.

Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.

What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it.

Was it also mean to be an argument? DRM is what enables use of the media (or keeps it disabled), duh.

This pricing scheme is rotten. At least with DLC you could say to yourself, " well, there wasn't room on the disk or it wasn't completed yet, so I'll pony up $5 to cover costs". This is completed content, already on a disk which you've paid a license to use the content on. The cost of creation is already set, the media and license to content has been purchased, so it shouldn't be extra to use what's already

After Borderlands I pretty much gave up on 2k. Sure the game was fun, but it was short. And within a couple months of release they were selling more content which didn't appear to add that much more to the length of the game.

I understand DLC is going to be more prevelant in the future, but I hope us gamers don't get hosed with unfinished games that the company requires an additional payment just to see all of the original content.

Not true. About a month ago they changed the map rotation. Most gametypes now only need the original Halo 3 disc without any DLC. It appears that if the game detects that all players have additional maps available, that they will be included in the rotation though.

I think that they are trying to make people really bored of Halo 3 so that when Halo: Reach comes out, people will be so sick of Halo 3 that they will hop on the new version right away.

This is one of the reasons I like Bad Company more then Modern Warfare.

When the first bad company came out multiplayer wasn't very good, I don't think it even had conquest mode. but today I pop in the game and it's pretty fun, I don't have to buy some crappy DLC to get the real online experience.

Compare this to CoD:W@W this game was actually pretty fun the day I bought it. But it only came with some of the content, Now there are 3-4 DLC's out and they want $10 bucks each. If I want to play a game today I ha

I got boned by that "Keep" DLC with the storage box. I made it to the top of the Keep, killed everything, on the way out I notice that Picture you click to make a chest pop out of the wall..I'm overloaded so, Hey I'll just bop down to the storage box, unload and come back.

NOPE! Since I "Beat" the Keep , the doors now no longer open, Chest lost forever. I was so pissed.

They could have just dumped that damn storage box at camp since the door to the keep was closed forever after you beat it. I paid for that damn Keep and now I can't enter it? What Bullshit.

I don't know why people would feel happier paying for DLC that they feel came out after the game's release. If that were the overwhelming opinion then all companies would do is complete the DLC before the game was released (on the same schedule as before) and then artificially delay it for a couple of months.

That said, I love DLC, as it's what's prevented me from paying $50 for any new title. Nowadays I just wait a couple of years for a gold/platinum/complete/game of the year edition and pay $5-20 for a large amount of gameplay. I look forward to playing Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 in 2012:)

There's a long tradition of game sequels. These are additional content that come out after the game's release - not that much different than DLC is it?

A big difference between pre-release and post-release content is that post-release content can take feedback into consideration in its development. Even if it starts during QA of the final game, the post-launch DLC can incorporate gameplay and content that players felt was lacking. Sequels often take the chance to remove annoyances and add more of what peo

Of course you want everyone to be able to play games with people who have downloaded the DLC! Obviously, you want them to see what they're missing by being a "have not".

This reminds me of the Descent 3 expansion pack, which introduced a new choice of ship to the existing 3 models, which was pretty much superior in every way. Even if you didn't buy the expansion pack, you could still play with people who had it and see their ship in all it's black and multi-missile-launching glory -- I can't remember if it

Is it just me or do I see more outrage than the time MS shipped all versions of Vista on a single disc, and it was only the product key you got (and the price you paid for it) that determined the edition it installed. If you skipped the product key it had to ask you which edition to install!

If customers succesfully manage to cause PR trouble for 2K over this, developers will have to take notice and they will never do this again with any other game: for subsequent releases, the 108kb key will be padded with 350MB of nothing. PR crisis averted!

So, if they still made DLC alongside the actual game itself but instead downloaded a 180KB key file + 20MB dummy file that went straight to/dev/null it would be ok?

All this outrage is going to do is to force developers to move that content off-disc so they can pretend they developed it outside the standard development cycle. You don't really think company execs will say "gee, we'd better provide better value," do you? Particularly when every other company jumps aboard?

will still pay for the damn thing. Gamers are some of the biggest mindless consumers there are right after the Apple fanatics:)

You get a few companies like Rockstar who release DLC which is basically the equivalent of an entire new game. That's the kind of DLC people want.

The funny thing is that DLC is a perfect way for publishers to make sure they will always get some $$ on used game sales. BUT savy people know that if you just wait 6-12 months you'll be able to buy the SE version of a game that includ

I don't mind DLC usually. Like in the case of Borderlands. I liked the game, but it was enough for me. The bugs and the cheating really killed any hope of multiplayer that I had with the game. But the DLC idea was nice.

If they had tried to get me to pay for 'locked' areas that were already in the game, however, they wouldn't have gotten my money. Moreover, I would have returned the game if I could have and explained why. Games should NOT have DLC from day one unless it's a cheap game to begin with. S

Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk. Compatibility isn't a problem. An models that users don't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done.

It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.

So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code? Sounds to me like your game is broken. Why the hell can't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I don't? As long as we're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever, that shouldn't be a problem. Admittedly, I haven't played Bioshock 2 and I don't know exactly how the multiplayer works, but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.

In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games. But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman. I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.

This whole thing is interesting to me. I think we're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.

Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter? Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into. They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was. This unlock was not included in that transaction. Then, the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content. People decide whether or not they want that content.

However, we have this notion that once we've bought a 'thing' we should have full access to it. I like this idea, personally. I think most of us here do. When they reveal that you bought the disc, and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out, that's evil.

However, if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc, that would be OK? If they COULD have put it on the disc, but they didn't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished? I think that gets a bit more gray.

What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped? Is that OK?

Is it that we're theoretically 'covering the cost' of the development of the game with our $60 or $50? And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game? On the other hand, they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not. What is hidden in the disc's dead space is of little concern, right?

DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries. One the one hand, it seems like game prices are going up by degrees. We're paying $60 for a game, PLUS another $5 here and $10 there. Some games, especially multiplayer titles, may cost you upwards of $100 by the time you're finished. Are we getting our money's worth? Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value? At the same time, do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we're getting into: ie, you will pay $60 for this game and an estimated $x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete' experience.

Not to mention the whole 'project $10' initiative - where there's a code in the box that you can only use once, and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...

Complicating matters is that there's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD:MW2 map, for instance, you're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live. There's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.

I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices. And, by and large, the average gamer is going to be oblivious.

This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now. 2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.

I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.

If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.

I don't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2. There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer, instead of a game like Bioshock, where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.

A lot of people who haven't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.

I'll repost Aphoxema's comment above, since it is the best Car Analogy for the scenario.

If I sold you a car and it had a cupholder with a lock on it, and you had to pay me any amount of money for me to take that lock off , would you feel right about it? Worse yet, lets imagine that there's laws mandating that you're not allowed to drill or cut that lock off, even though it was sold to you with your car.

Can you understand it now? Can you understand that -having- content but being unable to use it as frustrat

Your analogy is a little off... They produce one disk with all the versions but openly advertise different features with different versions. DLC is supposed to be additional content produced after the game goes gold/is released. It violates the spirit of what DLC is...it's extra. It's not part of the game held back so they can charge extra for it. To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it. Game

This kind of shenanigans is always done in the corporate world. You can buy servers that require a simple piece of paper to run more cores, but the components are already in place. The car example even covers this with the hooded gas tanks to change the amount of gas you can put in the car. The car company is actually physically adding something to the vehicle to place it in the "unupgraded" state. Companies do this all the time. What is ridiculous is that software would get special treatment under the law

The reason it seems so irksome in this case whereas people are OK with the Windows situation is that you know upfront that you're buying one version of windows that has a certain number of features, from a list the company offered you. When the company drip feeds extra features to you at extra charge it interferes with the normal way people judge value, so they feel swindled, hence a general dislike of DLC. But DLC isn't as bad as it could be - at least you're getting extra content that wasn't available before. When it turns out that the "new" content isn't actually new development work, it feels like you're being exploited.